You're viewing Docket Item 24 from the case Major Drilling America, Inc. v. Redemption Energy, LLC. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 4:13-cv-00048-CSM Document 24 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

NORTHWESTERN DIVISION

Major Drilling America, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Redemption Energy, LLC,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 4:13-cv-048

On May 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Bill of Costs

(Statement of Costs and Disbursements). On May 17, 2013, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff’s

complaint along with a response in opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

It is well established that default judgments are not favored by the law. United States v.

Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993). Rather, there is a "judicial preference for adjudication on

the merits." Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff

has suffered no appreciable prejudice by defendant’s delay in filing its answer. Plaintiff’s motions

(Docket Nos. 6 and 11) are therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 4th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge